I must confess to not following this story very closely the last few months. But this latest move by China to assert its sovereignty over a vast area in the South China Sea has alarmed other countries in the region and is a direct challenge to the US Navy’s mission to maintain freedom of navigation in the world’s oceans.

First, the map above, courtesy of James Fallows at The Atlantic, shows you what China is claiming as it’s “territorial waters”:

Fallows explains that “the red line encloses what China considers its own sovereign area; the blue shows Vietnam’s claims; the purple shows those of the Philippines; the yellow is Malaysia’s; and the green is from Brunei.”

You get the idea just from the map why China’s recent insistence on its claims has riled its neighbors through the region. For instance, Brunei is a very long way from mainland China, but China contends that its waters reach practically down to Brunei’s shores.

Now let’s add the detail that the faint white lines on the map show major shipping routes — whose importance is even greater than the map suggests. Obviously lots of commerce in and out of China goes through Hong Kong and neighboring ports. But shipping lanes that have nothing directly to do with mainland China, including the export paths from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to Europe, pass through these waters toward the Indian Ocean. Half the world’s oil-cargo traffic comes back the opposite way, from the Middle East, through this same route.

For months, Chinese patrol boats and other craft have scuffled with foreign vessels, mainly from the Philippines and most often over contested fishing grounds. But an assertion from officials in Hainan that they can stop and board any vessel passing through these waters is something quite different. The US Navy has had a lot of different missions over the centuries, but one of its elemental purposes has been defending freedom-of-navigation on the high seas. The Seventh Fleet is the regnant military power in this area. I am usually in the “oh calm down” camp about frictions, especially military, between China and America. But it is easy to imagine things becoming dangerous, quickly, if the new Chinese administration actually tries to carry out this order.

China is claiming it has the right to “land on, check, seize, and expel foreign ships” that enter the area illegally.” What do they consider “illegal?”

The official China Daily says “illegal” activities include entering the province’s waters without permission and “engaging in publicity that endangers China’s national security.” It says the new rules will take effect January 1.

And to add to the tensions ratcheted up by this new order, China has changed its passport to reflect their claim to almost the entire sea:

The latest front on the simmering dispute is China’s new passport, which shows a map of the country including almost all of the strategically significant sea, the site of key shipping routes and possibly significant petroleum reserves.

It is also claimed wholly or in part by Vietnam and the Philippines – both of which have refused to stamp the Chinese travel documents – Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan.

Washington described the passports as unhelpful, while Jakarta called them “counterproductive”.

For the moment, all the US is doing is “asking questions” of China about the new policy. But whither the US Navy? Aren’t they the guarantor of freedom of the seas? This excellent posting at FP Passport by Michael Austin should raise some alarms if not eyebrows:

Coming just four days after China showed the world its first launch and recovery of a fighter jet from its sole aircraft carrier, and roughly four months after Beijing upgraded a small naval outpost to become a full-fledged military garrison covering the South China Sea, this news seems both logical and stunningly reckless. Already, China’s expansive claims to the island territories and waters of the South China Sea have put it at odds with its neighbors and the United States over the past several years. Yet freedom of navigation has always been seen as the one red line with China’s growing military strength. Beijing can threaten Taiwan, oppress Tibet, tussle with Asian neighbors over contested island territory, and build stealth fighters and carrier-killer missiles, but interfering with the world’s trade and free navigation was assumed to be the one (plausible) thing that would result in intervention by the U.S. Navy to uphold international law.

[...]

The real question, then, is whether Beijing truly intends to cross the line because it feels strong enough to get away with it, or if this is just more bluster from a regime that continually tests the resolve of nations in Asia.

What these new rules really mean is still vague, and Beijing will probably have to clarify more than it did yesterday, by stating that there was no problem “at present” with other nations freely transiting the South China Sea. Meanwhile, Washington needs to make clear in the strongest possible terms that freedom of navigation won’t be interfered with under any circumstances, and that the U.S. Navy will forcibly prevent any ship from being boarded or turned around by Chinese vessels.

If Washington fails to come up with a clear policy and operational plan, and responds sluggishly if China interferes with innocent shipping, then it will lose more credibility in an Asia that is already questioning its staying power, and will undermine President Obama’s promise to “rebalance” to the Asia-Pacific.

Obviously, if the US Navy decided to get involved the Chinese would either be forced into a humiliating retreat or…what? China’s surface fleet is growing but it is not a match for the 7th Fleet. But if they decided to make a stand, they could inflict some damage with sophisticated ship to ship and surface to sea missiles.

I don’t think China is after a confrontation with the US on the high seas, but it looks inevitable that the disputed waters of the South China Sea are going to warm up considerably after the first of the year.

Agreed. – O’bummer’s so-called promises have so far been found not worth the hot air used to utter them. – China intends, in good time, to become the new hegemon of the Pacific rim. – This is their next step toward that goal. They’ve always known a golden opportunity when they saw one. – Three steps forward, two steps back. They know what they’re doing!

The article didn’t say anything about “freedom of the seas” (whatever the heck that means) and the Constitution was never mentioned — the author pointed out that it has always been the Navy’s MISSION to maintain freedom of navigation in the world’s oceans. Gee Whiz Hot Rod, calm down.

John,
Josh asked a valid question. I didn’t see any hot headed fury that needed calming.

You are correct, the Navy’s mission has been to guarantee freedom of the seas. Josh brings up a valid point however, that there is nothing that requires the U.S. to take on this task alone. For example, it isn’t the U.S. Navy’s responsibility to ensure the safety of oil tankers leaving the Arabian Gulf which are often headed to China and Japan. Japan has a capable and technologically advanced Navy, and has reason to oppose an infringement on international shipping routes.

If China actually makes good on its threat, perhaps a solution which would not require U.S. confrontation with China would be to make public a policy that the U.S. Navy would not come to the assistance of ships headed to China. Pirates would be free to interdict Chinese shipping. China might find itself returning to enthusiatic support of collective freedom of navigation.

Who has the appropriate international authority to police any given bodies of international waters? International Tribunal and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea/Public International Law. Keep in mid that China ia a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a member of the International Tribunal

The principal conduct of international waters or maritime interception operations are typically mandated by resolutions of the United Nations Security.

That said, and in lay terms, any nation who borders international waters essentially has complete authoritity within 12 miles and defined authority within their 200 mile designated radius. As for matters involving ‘disputed’ waters, the tribunal hears such cases and renders decisions as brought before it.

I have a feeling this kind of reporting lack details approriate to make or form any educated opinions. I would have to know how the Chineses is defining the term “territorial waters” to have any informed opinions.

From the map it would indicate they are simply disclosing that their new navy will restrict operations to and within the area designated on the map as opposed to some worldwide operations of the open seas such as the U.S., UK, Russia, etc.

As to the other claims published, China would have to have entered into treaties with those nations listed in order to effect the authority claimed but then again, only inside the 200 mile or radius of each of those nations. We all know, including China, that is not the case and violates international law. They full well know the controlling international laws.

If there is only a 12 mile or less than 200 mile radius and a open seas channel designated then each nation has control of the channel which borders its nation.

Indeed. This is the raison d’etre for the United Nations or a textbook case for the “Rule of International Law”. I’m confident that the Mainstream Press, if they could break out of their bovine-like assertiveness, would not have a clue about applying either to this situation. Wouldn’t be prudent to dismay the hosts at the Forbidden City Hilton.

But really, why would China want to make itself administrator of 500,000 square miles of mostly open ocean? It’s not like them. Of course the answer previously was “oil” around the Spratlys. But with the advent of fracking, that would seem to be out of date. So, I see that there actually is naval friction (sounds like some kind of kinky pr0n) out there, but the reason for it seems almost entirely lacking.

I’ve said before, that with China’s trading routes going all over the world now, their products outbound, oil and other resources inbound, it would be nice if they would pay their own way by helping to enforce “freedom of the seas” around the world, say around the Horn of Africa where the might of the US Navy seems unable to defeat guys in loinclothes with sharp sticks.

Anyway, I just don’t see any imperatives for US action in any of this. We are world hegemon when it suits our purposes, or at least have been, I don’t know if we’re up to doing it under the Obamanation, or possibly in any case. We can certainly sell arms to those we favor in this, if there is any serious issue in the first place, which I doubt. We should of course maintain the ability to defend “freedom of the seas” if our own ships or other interests are impacted, even indirectly, but again, just where is that?

“why would China want to make itself administrator of 500,000 square miles of mostly open ocean?”

Possibly because the U.S. is in the midst of reinstituting a military relationship with the Phililppines to include bases once again and of course a similar relationship taking place with Vietnam. Then of course there remains the issue of a military agreement with Taiwan. There are two issues at hand.

1) The U.S. military shift towards Southeast Asia and to some degree reinstituting to old SEATO agreements and alliances.

2) With the emergence of China as a world leader (if not the leading)economic power who just happens to be forming a new naval force capable of presenting a golobal presence in the faces of the traditional naval powers.

When a military or political perceived weakness presents, there is rarely a vacuum. Somebody sees it as their opportunity to step up and present challenges.